Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2191 | control, N = 1101 | treatment, N = 1091 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 217 | 51.05 ± 12.89 (23 - 75) | 50.47 ± 13.26 (23 - 75) | 51.62 ± 12.54 (28 - 73) | 0.512 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 219 | 0.626 | |||
f | 178 (81%) | 88 (80%) | 90 (83%) | ||
m | 41 (19%) | 22 (20%) | 19 (17%) | ||
occupation | 219 | 0.692 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.7%) | 2 (1.8%) | 4 (3.7%) | ||
full_time | 25 (11%) | 13 (12%) | 12 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 30 (14%) | 15 (14%) | 15 (14%) | ||
other | 2 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.8%) | ||
part_time | 41 (19%) | 22 (20%) | 19 (17%) | ||
retired | 51 (23%) | 23 (21%) | 28 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.7%) | 4 (3.6%) | 4 (3.7%) | ||
shelter | 2 (0.9%) | 2 (1.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 2 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.8%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.8%) | 3 (2.7%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
unemploy | 48 (22%) | 26 (24%) | 22 (20%) | ||
marital | 219 | 0.977 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
divore | 24 (11%) | 13 (12%) | 11 (10%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | 2 (1.8%) | ||
married | 68 (31%) | 32 (29%) | 36 (33%) | ||
none | 104 (47%) | 53 (48%) | 51 (47%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.4%) | 2 (1.8%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
widow | 15 (6.8%) | 8 (7.3%) | 7 (6.4%) | ||
edu | 219 | 0.512 | |||
bachelor | 47 (21%) | 20 (18%) | 27 (25%) | ||
diploma | 38 (17%) | 24 (22%) | 14 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (2.3%) | 4 (3.6%) | 1 (0.9%) | ||
postgraduate | 15 (6.8%) | 8 (7.3%) | 7 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 18 (8.2%) | 9 (8.2%) | 9 (8.3%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 25 (11%) | 13 (12%) | 12 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 61 (28%) | 28 (25%) | 33 (30%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 10 (4.6%) | 4 (3.6%) | 6 (5.5%) | ||
fam_income | 219 | 0.791 | |||
10001_12000 | 7 (3.2%) | 2 (1.8%) | 5 (4.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 11 (5.0%) | 4 (3.6%) | 7 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 10 (4.6%) | 4 (3.6%) | 6 (5.5%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.3%) | 3 (2.7%) | 2 (1.8%) | ||
18001_20000 | 10 (4.6%) | 7 (6.4%) | 3 (2.8%) | ||
20001_above | 39 (18%) | 23 (21%) | 16 (15%) | ||
2001_4000 | 32 (15%) | 16 (15%) | 16 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 28 (13%) | 12 (11%) | 16 (15%) | ||
6001_8000 | 20 (9.1%) | 11 (10%) | 9 (8.3%) | ||
8001_10000 | 17 (7.8%) | 9 (8.2%) | 8 (7.3%) | ||
below_2000 | 40 (18%) | 19 (17%) | 21 (19%) | ||
medication | 219 | 196 (89%) | 98 (89%) | 98 (90%) | 0.844 |
onset_duration | 217 | 15.30 ± 10.85 (0 - 63) | 14.76 ± 10.97 (0 - 56) | 15.86 ± 10.74 (0 - 63) | 0.456 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 215 | 35.85 ± 14.45 (-18 - 72) | 35.63 ± 13.24 (10 - 72) | 36.07 ± 15.64 (-18 - 68) | 0.824 |
Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2191 | control, N = 1101 | treatment, N = 1091 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 219 | 3.15 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.17 ± 1.25 (1 - 5) | 3.12 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.750 |
recovery_stage_b | 219 | 17.90 ± 2.84 (8 - 24) | 18.06 ± 2.90 (8 - 24) | 17.74 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.405 |
ras_confidence | 219 | 29.86 ± 5.48 (9 - 45) | 29.79 ± 5.47 (14 - 45) | 29.94 ± 5.51 (9 - 45) | 0.845 |
ras_willingness | 219 | 11.65 ± 2.10 (3 - 15) | 11.70 ± 2.01 (5 - 15) | 11.61 ± 2.20 (3 - 15) | 0.740 |
ras_goal | 219 | 17.39 ± 3.27 (5 - 25) | 17.26 ± 3.23 (7 - 25) | 17.52 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 0.558 |
ras_reliance | 219 | 13.22 ± 2.89 (4 - 20) | 13.09 ± 2.83 (5 - 20) | 13.35 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.510 |
ras_domination | 219 | 9.82 ± 2.41 (3 - 15) | 10.05 ± 2.41 (3 - 15) | 9.58 ± 2.39 (3 - 15) | 0.144 |
symptom | 219 | 30.38 ± 9.66 (14 - 70) | 30.75 ± 10.17 (14 - 70) | 30.00 ± 9.14 (14 - 56) | 0.564 |
slof_work | 219 | 22.25 ± 4.73 (10 - 30) | 22.36 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.13 ± 5.03 (10 - 30) | 0.714 |
slof_relationship | 219 | 25.19 ± 5.73 (9 - 35) | 24.72 ± 5.85 (9 - 35) | 25.67 ± 5.60 (11 - 35) | 0.220 |
satisfaction | 219 | 20.35 ± 7.06 (5 - 35) | 19.77 ± 6.98 (5 - 35) | 20.93 ± 7.13 (5 - 35) | 0.227 |
mhc_emotional | 219 | 10.77 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 10.66 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 10.87 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 0.681 |
mhc_social | 219 | 15.27 ± 5.81 (5 - 30) | 15.10 ± 5.91 (5 - 30) | 15.45 ± 5.74 (5 - 30) | 0.657 |
mhc_psychological | 219 | 21.79 ± 6.69 (6 - 36) | 21.59 ± 6.62 (7 - 36) | 22.00 ± 6.79 (6 - 36) | 0.652 |
resilisnce | 219 | 16.60 ± 4.56 (6 - 30) | 16.07 ± 4.24 (6 - 30) | 17.14 ± 4.83 (6 - 30) | 0.084 |
social_provision | 219 | 13.60 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.30 ± 2.73 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.87 (5 - 20) | 0.109 |
els_value_living | 219 | 16.99 ± 3.13 (5 - 25) | 16.84 ± 3.11 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.15 (5 - 25) | 0.464 |
els_life_fulfill | 219 | 12.79 ± 3.30 (4 - 20) | 12.47 ± 3.30 (5 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.28 (4 - 20) | 0.159 |
els | 219 | 29.78 ± 5.87 (9 - 45) | 29.31 ± 5.85 (11 - 45) | 30.25 ± 5.89 (9 - 45) | 0.238 |
social_connect | 219 | 26.72 ± 9.11 (8 - 48) | 27.20 ± 8.97 (8 - 48) | 26.23 ± 9.26 (8 - 48) | 0.432 |
shs_agency | 219 | 14.40 ± 4.97 (3 - 24) | 13.92 ± 4.85 (3 - 24) | 14.88 ± 5.06 (3 - 24) | 0.152 |
shs_pathway | 219 | 15.92 ± 4.13 (3 - 24) | 15.53 ± 4.25 (3 - 24) | 16.32 ± 3.98 (4 - 24) | 0.155 |
shs | 219 | 30.32 ± 8.71 (6 - 48) | 29.45 ± 8.75 (6 - 48) | 31.20 ± 8.62 (7 - 48) | 0.136 |
esteem | 219 | 12.73 ± 1.65 (9 - 20) | 12.74 ± 1.75 (9 - 20) | 12.72 ± 1.55 (10 - 20) | 0.926 |
mlq_search | 219 | 14.78 ± 3.48 (3 - 21) | 14.45 ± 3.47 (4 - 21) | 15.11 ± 3.48 (3 - 21) | 0.164 |
mlq_presence | 219 | 13.43 ± 4.30 (3 - 21) | 13.28 ± 4.14 (3 - 21) | 13.59 ± 4.47 (3 - 21) | 0.600 |
mlq | 219 | 28.21 ± 6.95 (6 - 42) | 27.74 ± 6.80 (7 - 42) | 28.70 ± 7.09 (6 - 42) | 0.307 |
empower | 219 | 19.26 ± 4.41 (6 - 30) | 19.02 ± 4.33 (9 - 30) | 19.51 ± 4.51 (6 - 30) | 0.407 |
ismi_resistance | 219 | 14.37 ± 2.62 (5 - 20) | 14.37 ± 2.42 (6 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.82 (5 - 20) | 0.966 |
ismi_discrimation | 219 | 11.74 ± 3.06 (5 - 20) | 11.87 ± 2.98 (5 - 20) | 11.60 ± 3.15 (5 - 20) | 0.505 |
sss_affective | 219 | 10.36 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.35 ± 3.58 (3 - 18) | 10.37 ± 3.70 (3 - 18) | 0.965 |
sss_behavior | 219 | 10.00 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 9.83 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 0.480 |
sss_cognitive | 219 | 8.71 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 8.65 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 8.77 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 0.805 |
sss | 219 | 29.07 ± 10.40 (9 - 54) | 29.17 ± 10.35 (9 - 54) | 28.96 ± 10.49 (9 - 54) | 0.882 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.17 | 0.117 | 2.94, 3.40 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.053 | 0.166 | -0.379, 0.272 | 0.748 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.106 | 0.158 | -0.204, 0.415 | 0.504 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.178 | 0.231 | -0.274, 0.631 | 0.441 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.1 | 0.278 | 17.5, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.321 | 0.394 | -1.09, 0.452 | 0.417 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.279 | 0.307 | -0.881, 0.323 | 0.366 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.837 | 0.450 | -0.046, 1.72 | 0.065 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.529 | 28.8, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.145 | 0.750 | -1.32, 1.61 | 0.847 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.569 | 0.494 | -0.398, 1.54 | 0.251 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.61 | 0.724 | 0.193, 3.03 | 0.028 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.198 | 11.3, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.094 | 0.280 | -0.644, 0.455 | 0.736 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.057 | 0.212 | -0.357, 0.472 | 0.787 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.503 | 0.310 | -0.105, 1.11 | 0.107 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.3 | 0.314 | 16.6, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.259 | 0.445 | -0.613, 1.13 | 0.561 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.209 | 0.313 | -0.405, 0.823 | 0.506 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.856 | 0.460 | -0.045, 1.76 | 0.065 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.280 | 12.5, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.258 | 0.396 | -0.519, 1.03 | 0.516 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.377 | 0.273 | -0.157, 0.912 | 0.169 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.436 | 0.400 | -0.348, 1.22 | 0.278 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.230 | 9.60, 10.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.477 | 0.326 | -1.12, 0.162 | 0.145 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.058 | 0.265 | -0.577, 0.460 | 0.825 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.06 | 0.388 | 0.305, 1.82 | 0.007 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.8 | 0.919 | 29.0, 32.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.755 | 1.302 | -3.31, 1.80 | 0.563 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.34 | 0.741 | -2.79, 0.113 | 0.073 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.994 | 1.088 | -3.13, 1.14 | 0.363 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.4 | 0.447 | 21.5, 23.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.235 | 0.634 | -1.48, 1.01 | 0.711 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.138 | 0.430 | -0.704, 0.981 | 0.748 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.526 | 0.631 | -0.710, 1.76 | 0.406 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.7 | 0.547 | 23.6, 25.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.952 | 0.775 | -0.567, 2.47 | 0.221 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.155 | 0.544 | -1.22, 0.911 | 0.776 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.874 | 0.798 | -0.689, 2.44 | 0.275 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.8 | 0.676 | 18.4, 21.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.15 | 0.958 | -0.723, 3.03 | 0.229 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.828 | 0.624 | -0.395, 2.05 | 0.187 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.915 | 0.916 | -0.880, 2.71 | 0.320 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.359 | 9.96, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.208 | 0.508 | -0.788, 1.20 | 0.683 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.345 | 0.306 | -0.254, 0.945 | 0.261 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.081 | 0.449 | -0.799, 0.962 | 0.857 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.571 | 14.0, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.350 | 0.809 | -1.24, 1.93 | 0.666 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.777 | 0.540 | -0.281, 1.83 | 0.152 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.126 | 0.792 | -1.43, 1.68 | 0.874 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.659 | 20.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.409 | 0.933 | -1.42, 2.24 | 0.662 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.988 | 0.585 | -0.159, 2.13 | 0.094 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.005 | 0.859 | -1.69, 1.68 | 0.995 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.425 | 15.2, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.06 | 0.603 | -0.117, 2.25 | 0.078 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.737 | 0.450 | -0.145, 1.62 | 0.104 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.842 | 0.659 | -0.450, 2.13 | 0.204 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.273 | 12.8, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.608 | 0.388 | -0.151, 1.37 | 0.118 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.228 | 0.279 | -0.774, 0.318 | 0.414 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.567 | 0.409 | -0.233, 1.37 | 0.167 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.303 | 16.2, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.310 | 0.430 | -0.532, 1.15 | 0.471 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.273 | 0.307 | -0.328, 0.874 | 0.375 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.529 | 0.450 | -0.353, 1.41 | 0.242 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.5 | 0.312 | 11.9, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.628 | 0.443 | -0.239, 1.50 | 0.157 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.208 | 0.292 | -0.365, 0.780 | 0.479 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.509 | 0.429 | -0.331, 1.35 | 0.237 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.567 | 28.2, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.939 | 0.804 | -0.638, 2.51 | 0.244 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.506 | 0.515 | -0.503, 1.52 | 0.327 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.987 | 0.756 | -0.495, 2.47 | 0.194 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.2 | 0.881 | 25.5, 28.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.971 | 1.249 | -3.42, 1.48 | 0.438 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.219 | 0.785 | -1.32, 1.76 | 0.781 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.60 | 1.152 | -5.85, -1.34 | 0.002 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.476 | 13.0, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.963 | 0.675 | -0.361, 2.29 | 0.155 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.517 | 0.413 | -0.293, 1.33 | 0.213 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.410 | 0.607 | -0.780, 1.60 | 0.501 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.5 | 0.387 | 14.8, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.794 | 0.548 | -0.281, 1.87 | 0.149 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.618 | 0.368 | -0.102, 1.34 | 0.095 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.308 | 0.540 | -0.749, 1.37 | 0.569 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.824 | 27.8, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.76 | 1.168 | -0.533, 4.05 | 0.134 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.13 | 0.720 | -0.277, 2.55 | 0.118 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.714 | 1.058 | -1.36, 2.79 | 0.501 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.7 | 0.151 | 12.4, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.021 | 0.214 | -0.440, 0.399 | 0.923 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.097 | 0.200 | -0.489, 0.296 | 0.630 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.084 | 0.293 | -0.489, 0.658 | 0.773 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.331 | 13.8, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.656 | 0.469 | -0.264, 1.57 | 0.163 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.664 | 0.383 | -0.087, 1.42 | 0.085 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.620 | 0.561 | -1.72, 0.481 | 0.271 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.404 | 12.5, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.305 | 0.572 | -0.816, 1.43 | 0.594 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.707 | 0.434 | -0.144, 1.56 | 0.106 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.062 | 0.636 | -1.19, 1.31 | 0.922 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 0.663 | 26.4, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.961 | 0.939 | -0.880, 2.80 | 0.307 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.37 | 0.739 | -0.078, 2.82 | 0.066 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.539 | 1.083 | -2.66, 1.58 | 0.619 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.427 | 18.2, 19.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.496 | 0.605 | -0.690, 1.68 | 0.413 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.01 | 0.410 | 0.210, 1.82 | 0.015 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.357 | 0.602 | -1.54, 0.823 | 0.554 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.244 | 13.9, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.015 | 0.346 | -0.694, 0.664 | 0.966 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.415 | 0.292 | -0.157, 0.987 | 0.157 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.425 | 0.427 | -0.412, 1.26 | 0.321 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.293 | 11.3, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.276 | 0.416 | -1.09, 0.538 | 0.507 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.565 | 0.353 | -1.26, 0.127 | 0.112 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.383 | 0.517 | -1.40, 0.630 | 0.460 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 0.348 | 9.66, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.022 | 0.493 | -0.944, 0.987 | 0.965 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.396 | 0.316 | -1.02, 0.224 | 0.213 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.678 | 0.465 | -1.59, 0.233 | 0.147 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.351 | 9.49, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.356 | 0.497 | -1.33, 0.618 | 0.474 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.574 | 0.330 | -1.22, 0.072 | 0.084 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.173 | 0.484 | -1.12, 0.775 | 0.721 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.65 | 0.350 | 7.96, 9.33 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.125 | 0.496 | -0.848, 1.10 | 0.801 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.422 | 0.338 | -1.08, 0.240 | 0.214 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.525 | 0.495 | -1.50, 0.446 | 0.291 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.985 | 27.2, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.209 | 1.397 | -2.95, 2.53 | 0.881 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.35 | 0.838 | -3.00, 0.291 | 0.109 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.34 | 1.231 | -3.75, 1.08 | 0.279 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.61e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.17 (95% CI [2.94, 3.40], t(330) = 27.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.27], t(330) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.42], t(330) = 0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.63], t(330) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.06 (95% CI [17.52, 18.61], t(330) = 64.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.45], t(330) = -0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.32], t(330) = -0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.72], t(330) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.79 (95% CI [28.75, 30.83], t(330) = 56.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.61], t(330) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.54], t(330) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.61, 95% CI [0.19, 3.03], t(330) = 2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [0.03, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.70 (95% CI [11.31, 12.09], t(330) = 59.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.45], t(330) = -0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.47], t(330) = 0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.11], t(330) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.26 (95% CI [16.65, 17.88], t(330) = 54.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.13], t(330) = 0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.82], t(330) = 0.67, p = 0.505; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.76], t(330) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.09 (95% CI [12.54, 13.64], t(330) = 46.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.03], t(330) = 0.65, p = 0.516; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.91], t(330) = 1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.22], t(330) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.05 (95% CI [9.60, 10.51], t(330) = 43.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.16], t(330) = -1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.46], t(330) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [0.30, 1.82], t(330) = 2.75, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [0.13, 0.75])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.75 (95% CI [28.95, 32.55], t(330) = 33.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-3.31, 1.80], t(330) = -0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.11], t(330) = -1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-3.13, 1.14], t(330) = -0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.31e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.36 (95% CI [21.49, 23.24], t(330) = 50.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.01], t(330) = -0.37, p = 0.711; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.98], t(330) = 0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.76], t(330) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.72 (95% CI [23.65, 25.79], t(330) = 45.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.57, 2.47], t(330) = 1.23, p = 0.219; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.91], t(330) = -0.29, p = 0.775; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.44], t(330) = 1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.77 (95% CI [18.45, 21.10], t(330) = 29.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.72, 3.03], t(330) = 1.20, p = 0.228; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.05], t(330) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.88, 2.71], t(330) = 1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.66 (95% CI [9.96, 11.37], t(330) = 29.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.20], t(330) = 0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.95], t(330) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.96], t(330) = 0.18, p = 0.856; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.10 (95% CI [13.98, 16.22], t(330) = 26.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.93], t(330) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.83], t(330) = 1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.68], t(330) = 0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.59 (95% CI [20.30, 22.88], t(330) = 32.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.24], t(330) = 0.44, p = 0.661; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.13], t(330) = 1.69, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.35e-03, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.68], t(330) = -6.23e-03, p = 0.995; Std. beta = -7.83e-04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.07 (95% CI [15.24, 16.91], t(330) = 37.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.25], t(330) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.62], t(330) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.45, 2.13], t(330) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.30 (95% CI [12.76, 13.84], t(330) = 48.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.37], t(330) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.32], t(330) = -0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.37], t(330) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.84 (95% CI [16.24, 17.43], t(330) = 55.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.15], t(330) = 0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.87], t(330) = 0.89, p = 0.374; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.41], t(330) = 1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.47 (95% CI [11.86, 13.08], t(330) = 39.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.50], t(330) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.78], t(330) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.35], t(330) = 1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.31 (95% CI [28.20, 30.42], t(330) = 51.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.51], t(330) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.52], t(330) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.47], t(330) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.20 (95% CI [25.47, 28.93], t(330) = 30.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-3.42, 1.48], t(330) = -0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.76], t(330) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.60, 95% CI [-5.85, -1.34], t(330) = -3.12, p = 0.002; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.62, -0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.92 (95% CI [12.98, 14.85], t(330) = 29.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.29], t(330) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.33], t(330) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.60], t(330) = 0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.53 (95% CI [14.77, 16.29], t(330) = 40.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.87], t(330) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.34], t(330) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.37], t(330) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.45 (95% CI [27.83, 31.06], t(330) = 35.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.76, 95% CI [-0.53, 4.05], t(330) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.28, 2.55], t(330) = 1.57, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.79], t(330) = 0.68, p = 0.500; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.63e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.74 (95% CI [12.44, 13.03], t(330) = 84.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.40], t(330) = -0.10, p = 0.923; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.30], t(330) = -0.48, p = 0.629; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.66], t(330) = 0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.45 (95% CI [13.81, 15.10], t(330) = 43.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.57], t(330) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.42], t(330) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.48], t(330) = -1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.28 (95% CI [12.49, 14.07], t(330) = 32.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.43], t(330) = 0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.56], t(330) = 1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.31], t(330) = 0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [26.44, 29.04], t(330) = 41.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.88, 2.80], t(330) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.08, 2.82], t(330) = 1.86, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.66, 1.58], t(330) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.02 (95% CI [18.18, 19.85], t(330) = 44.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.68], t(330) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [0.21, 1.82], t(330) = 2.47, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.05, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.82], t(330) = -0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.37 (95% CI [13.89, 14.85], t(330) = 58.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.66], t(330) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -5.81e-03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.99], t(330) = 1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.26], t(330) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.87 (95% CI [11.30, 12.45], t(330) = 40.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.54], t(330) = -0.66, p = 0.506; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.26, 0.13], t(330) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.63], t(330) = -0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.35 (95% CI [9.66, 11.03], t(330) = 29.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.99], t(330) = 0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = 5.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.22], t(330) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.23], t(330) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.49, 10.87], t(330) = 29.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.62], t(330) = -0.72, p = 0.474; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.07], t(330) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.78], t(330) = -0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.96, 9.33], t(330) = 24.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.10], t(330) = 0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.24], t(330) = -1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.45], t(330) = -1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.24, 31.10], t(330) = 29.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-2.95, 2.53], t(330) = -0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-3.00, 0.29], t(330) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-3.75, 1.08], t(330) = -1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,076.382 | 1,087.833 | -535.191 | 1,070.382 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,079.089 | 1,101.992 | -533.545 | 1,067.089 | 3.293 | 3 | 0.349 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,621.963 | 1,633.414 | -807.981 | 1,615.963 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,624.194 | 1,647.097 | -806.097 | 1,612.194 | 3.768 | 3 | 0.288 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,033.644 | 2,045.095 | -1,013.822 | 2,027.644 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,021.587 | 2,044.490 | -1,004.793 | 2,009.587 | 18.057 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,388.637 | 1,400.088 | -691.318 | 1,382.637 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,388.412 | 1,411.315 | -688.206 | 1,376.412 | 6.225 | 3 | 0.101 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,690.894 | 1,702.345 | -842.447 | 1,684.894 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,685.444 | 1,708.346 | -836.722 | 1,673.444 | 11.450 | 3 | 0.010 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,606.945 | 1,618.396 | -800.472 | 1,600.945 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,602.589 | 1,625.492 | -795.295 | 1,590.589 | 10.356 | 3 | 0.016 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,510.913 | 1,522.364 | -752.457 | 1,504.913 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,504.247 | 1,527.150 | -746.124 | 1,492.247 | 12.666 | 3 | 0.005 |
symptom | null | 3 | 2,367.321 | 2,378.772 | -1,180.661 | 2,361.321 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 2,361.301 | 2,384.203 | -1,174.650 | 2,349.301 | 12.020 | 3 | 0.007 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,911.156 | 1,922.607 | -952.578 | 1,905.156 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,914.933 | 1,937.835 | -951.466 | 1,902.933 | 2.223 | 3 | 0.527 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,055.398 | 2,066.849 | -1,024.699 | 2,049.398 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,057.183 | 2,080.086 | -1,022.592 | 2,045.183 | 4.214 | 3 | 0.239 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,188.577 | 2,200.029 | -1,091.289 | 2,182.577 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,183.974 | 2,206.876 | -1,085.987 | 2,171.974 | 10.604 | 3 | 0.014 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,738.578 | 1,750.029 | -866.289 | 1,732.578 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,741.411 | 1,764.313 | -864.705 | 1,729.411 | 3.167 | 3 | 0.367 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,074.168 | 2,085.620 | -1,034.084 | 2,068.168 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,075.532 | 2,098.434 | -1,031.766 | 2,063.532 | 4.637 | 3 | 0.200 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,158.012 | 2,169.463 | -1,076.006 | 2,152.012 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,158.601 | 2,181.503 | -1,073.300 | 2,146.601 | 5.411 | 3 | 0.144 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,912.845 | 1,924.296 | -953.422 | 1,906.845 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,900.928 | 1,923.831 | -944.464 | 1,888.928 | 17.917 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,596.770 | 1,608.221 | -795.385 | 1,590.770 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,596.467 | 1,619.370 | -792.233 | 1,584.467 | 6.303 | 3 | 0.098 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,666.723 | 1,678.174 | -830.361 | 1,660.723 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,664.848 | 1,687.750 | -826.424 | 1,652.848 | 7.875 | 3 | 0.049 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,670.841 | 1,682.292 | -832.420 | 1,664.841 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,667.998 | 1,690.901 | -827.999 | 1,655.998 | 8.842 | 3 | 0.031 |
els | null | 3 | 2,067.467 | 2,078.918 | -1,030.734 | 2,061.467 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,062.990 | 2,085.893 | -1,025.495 | 2,050.990 | 10.477 | 3 | 0.015 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 2,366.784 | 2,378.236 | -1,180.392 | 2,360.784 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 2,354.791 | 2,377.694 | -1,171.396 | 2,342.791 | 17.993 | 3 | 0.000 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,938.363 | 1,949.815 | -966.182 | 1,932.363 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,935.946 | 1,958.849 | -961.973 | 1,923.946 | 8.417 | 3 | 0.038 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,820.139 | 1,831.590 | -907.069 | 1,814.139 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,815.300 | 1,838.202 | -901.650 | 1,803.300 | 10.839 | 3 | 0.013 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,310.531 | 2,321.982 | -1,152.265 | 2,304.531 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,305.683 | 2,328.586 | -1,146.842 | 2,293.683 | 10.847 | 3 | 0.013 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,241.319 | 1,252.771 | -617.660 | 1,235.319 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,247.079 | 1,269.982 | -617.540 | 1,235.079 | 0.240 | 3 | 0.971 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,748.213 | 1,759.665 | -871.107 | 1,742.213 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,750.088 | 1,772.991 | -869.044 | 1,738.088 | 4.125 | 3 | 0.248 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,868.962 | 1,880.413 | -931.481 | 1,862.962 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,869.314 | 1,892.217 | -928.657 | 1,857.314 | 5.647 | 3 | 0.130 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,208.811 | 2,220.262 | -1,101.405 | 2,202.811 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,209.545 | 2,232.448 | -1,098.773 | 2,197.545 | 5.265 | 3 | 0.153 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,886.377 | 1,897.829 | -940.189 | 1,880.377 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,883.827 | 1,906.730 | -935.914 | 1,871.827 | 8.550 | 3 | 0.036 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,555.155 | 1,566.606 | -774.578 | 1,549.155 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,551.887 | 1,574.790 | -769.943 | 1,539.887 | 9.268 | 3 | 0.026 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,680.014 | 1,691.466 | -837.007 | 1,674.014 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,676.302 | 1,699.205 | -832.151 | 1,664.302 | 9.712 | 3 | 0.021 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,739.929 | 1,751.380 | -866.964 | 1,733.929 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,734.436 | 1,757.338 | -861.218 | 1,722.436 | 11.493 | 3 | 0.009 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,749.020 | 1,760.472 | -871.510 | 1,743.020 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,746.927 | 1,769.830 | -867.464 | 1,734.927 | 8.093 | 3 | 0.044 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,753.723 | 1,765.174 | -873.862 | 1,747.723 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,751.370 | 1,774.272 | -869.685 | 1,739.370 | 8.353 | 3 | 0.039 |
sss | null | 3 | 2,425.543 | 2,436.995 | -1,209.772 | 2,419.543 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 2,420.038 | 2,442.941 | -1,204.019 | 2,408.038 | 11.505 | 3 | 0.009 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 110 | 3.17 ± 1.23 | 109 | 3.12 ± 1.23 | 0.748 | 0.056 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 63 | 3.28 ± 1.19 | -0.111 | 54 | 3.40 ± 1.18 | -0.299 | 0.570 | -0.132 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 110 | 18.06 ± 2.92 | 109 | 17.74 ± 2.92 | 0.417 | 0.178 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 63 | 17.78 ± 2.67 | 0.155 | 54 | 18.30 ± 2.62 | -0.310 | 0.293 | -0.287 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 110 | 29.79 ± 5.55 | 109 | 29.94 ± 5.55 | 0.847 | -0.051 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 63 | 30.36 ± 4.87 | -0.200 | 54 | 32.12 ± 4.73 | -0.765 | 0.049 | -0.616 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 110 | 11.70 ± 2.07 | 109 | 11.61 ± 2.07 | 0.736 | 0.077 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 63 | 11.76 ± 1.88 | -0.046 | 54 | 12.17 ± 1.85 | -0.454 | 0.238 | -0.331 |
ras_goal | 1st | 110 | 17.26 ± 3.29 | 109 | 17.52 ± 3.29 | 0.561 | -0.143 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 63 | 17.47 ± 2.94 | -0.115 | 54 | 18.59 ± 2.87 | -0.585 | 0.039 | -0.613 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 110 | 13.09 ± 2.93 | 109 | 13.35 ± 2.93 | 0.516 | -0.163 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 63 | 13.47 ± 2.60 | -0.239 | 54 | 14.16 ± 2.54 | -0.515 | 0.146 | -0.439 |
ras_domination | 1st | 110 | 10.05 ± 2.41 | 109 | 9.58 ± 2.41 | 0.145 | 0.306 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 63 | 10.00 ± 2.23 | 0.038 | 54 | 10.58 ± 2.20 | -0.647 | 0.153 | -0.378 |
symptom | 1st | 110 | 30.75 ± 9.63 | 109 | 30.00 ± 9.63 | 0.563 | 0.178 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 63 | 29.42 ± 8.19 | 0.315 | 54 | 27.67 ± 7.91 | 0.549 | 0.242 | 0.412 |
slof_work | 1st | 110 | 22.36 ± 4.69 | 109 | 22.13 ± 4.69 | 0.711 | 0.095 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 63 | 22.50 ± 4.14 | -0.056 | 54 | 22.79 ± 4.04 | -0.267 | 0.701 | -0.117 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 110 | 24.72 ± 5.73 | 109 | 25.67 ± 5.73 | 0.221 | -0.302 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 63 | 24.56 ± 5.11 | 0.049 | 54 | 26.39 ± 4.99 | -0.228 | 0.052 | -0.579 |
satisfaction | 1st | 110 | 19.77 ± 7.09 | 109 | 20.93 ± 7.09 | 0.229 | -0.320 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 63 | 20.60 ± 6.20 | -0.230 | 54 | 22.67 ± 6.03 | -0.484 | 0.069 | -0.574 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 110 | 10.66 ± 3.76 | 109 | 10.87 ± 3.76 | 0.683 | -0.118 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 63 | 11.01 ± 3.24 | -0.196 | 54 | 11.30 ± 3.13 | -0.243 | 0.624 | -0.164 |
mhc_social | 1st | 110 | 15.10 ± 5.99 | 109 | 15.45 ± 5.99 | 0.666 | -0.112 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 63 | 15.88 ± 5.27 | -0.249 | 54 | 16.35 ± 5.13 | -0.289 | 0.622 | -0.152 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 110 | 21.59 ± 6.91 | 109 | 22.00 ± 6.91 | 0.662 | -0.121 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 63 | 22.58 ± 5.99 | -0.293 | 54 | 22.98 ± 5.81 | -0.291 | 0.712 | -0.120 |
resilisnce | 1st | 110 | 16.07 ± 4.46 | 109 | 17.14 ± 4.46 | 0.078 | -0.406 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 63 | 16.81 ± 4.04 | -0.281 | 54 | 18.72 ± 3.96 | -0.602 | 0.010 | -0.727 |
social_provision | 1st | 110 | 13.30 ± 2.87 | 109 | 13.91 ± 2.87 | 0.118 | -0.376 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 63 | 13.07 ± 2.57 | 0.141 | 54 | 14.25 ± 2.51 | -0.209 | 0.013 | -0.726 |
els_value_living | 1st | 110 | 16.84 ± 3.18 | 109 | 17.15 ± 3.18 | 0.471 | -0.174 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 63 | 17.11 ± 2.85 | -0.153 | 54 | 17.95 ± 2.78 | -0.450 | 0.108 | -0.471 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 110 | 12.47 ± 3.27 | 109 | 13.10 ± 3.27 | 0.157 | -0.372 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 63 | 12.68 ± 2.88 | -0.123 | 54 | 13.82 ± 2.80 | -0.424 | 0.031 | -0.674 |
els | 1st | 110 | 29.31 ± 5.95 | 109 | 30.25 ± 5.95 | 0.244 | -0.316 | ||
els | 2nd | 63 | 29.82 ± 5.19 | -0.170 | 54 | 31.74 ± 5.04 | -0.503 | 0.043 | -0.648 |
social_connect | 1st | 110 | 27.20 ± 9.24 | 109 | 26.23 ± 9.24 | 0.438 | 0.215 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 63 | 27.42 ± 8.03 | -0.048 | 54 | 22.85 ± 7.78 | 0.747 | 0.002 | 1.010 |
shs_agency | 1st | 110 | 13.92 ± 5.00 | 109 | 14.88 ± 5.00 | 0.155 | -0.405 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 63 | 14.44 ± 4.31 | -0.218 | 54 | 15.81 ± 4.18 | -0.390 | 0.082 | -0.577 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 110 | 15.53 ± 4.06 | 109 | 16.32 ± 4.06 | 0.149 | -0.373 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 63 | 16.15 ± 3.58 | -0.291 | 54 | 17.25 ± 3.48 | -0.435 | 0.093 | -0.518 |
shs | 1st | 110 | 29.45 ± 8.64 | 109 | 31.20 ± 8.64 | 0.134 | -0.424 | ||
shs | 2nd | 63 | 30.58 ± 7.47 | -0.274 | 54 | 33.05 ± 7.24 | -0.446 | 0.071 | -0.596 |
esteem | 1st | 110 | 12.74 ± 1.58 | 109 | 12.72 ± 1.58 | 0.923 | 0.017 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 63 | 12.64 ± 1.53 | 0.081 | 54 | 12.70 ± 1.51 | 0.010 | 0.821 | -0.053 |
mlq_search | 1st | 110 | 14.45 ± 3.47 | 109 | 15.11 ± 3.47 | 0.163 | -0.291 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 63 | 15.12 ± 3.22 | -0.295 | 54 | 15.15 ± 3.17 | -0.020 | 0.952 | -0.016 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 110 | 13.28 ± 4.23 | 109 | 13.59 ± 4.23 | 0.594 | -0.120 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 63 | 13.99 ± 3.85 | -0.279 | 54 | 14.36 ± 3.78 | -0.303 | 0.603 | -0.145 |
mlq | 1st | 110 | 27.74 ± 6.95 | 109 | 28.70 ± 6.95 | 0.307 | -0.222 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 63 | 29.11 ± 6.38 | -0.317 | 54 | 29.53 ± 6.27 | -0.192 | 0.719 | -0.097 |
empower | 1st | 110 | 19.02 ± 4.48 | 109 | 19.51 ± 4.48 | 0.413 | -0.209 | ||
empower | 2nd | 63 | 20.03 ± 3.96 | -0.427 | 54 | 20.17 ± 3.85 | -0.277 | 0.848 | -0.058 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 110 | 14.37 ± 2.56 | 109 | 14.36 ± 2.56 | 0.966 | 0.009 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 63 | 14.79 ± 2.40 | -0.241 | 54 | 15.20 ± 2.37 | -0.488 | 0.353 | -0.238 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 110 | 11.87 ± 3.08 | 109 | 11.60 ± 3.08 | 0.507 | 0.132 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 63 | 11.31 ± 2.88 | 0.271 | 54 | 10.65 ± 2.85 | 0.455 | 0.215 | 0.316 |
sss_affective | 1st | 110 | 10.35 ± 3.65 | 109 | 10.37 ± 3.65 | 0.965 | -0.012 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 63 | 9.95 ± 3.18 | 0.217 | 54 | 9.29 ± 3.09 | 0.588 | 0.260 | 0.359 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 110 | 10.18 ± 3.68 | 109 | 9.83 ± 3.68 | 0.474 | 0.187 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 63 | 9.61 ± 3.23 | 0.301 | 54 | 9.08 ± 3.15 | 0.392 | 0.371 | 0.278 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 110 | 8.65 ± 3.67 | 109 | 8.77 ± 3.67 | 0.801 | -0.064 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 63 | 8.22 ± 3.25 | 0.216 | 54 | 7.82 ± 3.16 | 0.484 | 0.502 | 0.204 |
sss | 1st | 110 | 29.17 ± 10.33 | 109 | 28.96 ± 10.33 | 0.881 | 0.043 | ||
sss | 2nd | 63 | 27.82 ± 8.89 | 0.281 | 54 | 26.27 ± 8.60 | 0.558 | 0.340 | 0.321 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(299.87) = -0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.27)
2st
t(330.17) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.56)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(268.16) = -0.81, p = 0.417, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.46)
2st
t(331.98) = 1.05, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.48)
ras_confidence
1st
t(251.23) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.62)
2st
t(329.03) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.51)
ras_willingness
1st
t(264.40) = -0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.65 to 0.46)
2st
t(331.97) = 1.18, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.09)
ras_goal
1st
t(257.08) = 0.58, p = 0.561, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.14)
2st
t(331.12) = 2.07, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.17)
ras_reliance
1st
t(254.99) = 0.65, p = 0.516, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.04)
2st
t(330.56) = 1.46, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.63)
ras_domination
1st
t(273.54) = -1.46, p = 0.145, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.17)
2st
t(331.73) = 1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.40)
symptom
1st
t(241.48) = -0.58, p = 0.563, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.32 to 1.81)
2st
t(319.95) = -1.17, p = 0.242, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-4.68 to 1.18)
slof_work
1st
t(253.70) = -0.37, p = 0.711, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.01)
2st
t(330.12) = 0.38, p = 0.701, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.78)
slof_relationship
1st
t(256.77) = 1.23, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.48)
2st
t(331.05) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.01 to 3.67)
satisfaction
1st
t(250.42) = 1.20, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.73 to 3.04)
2st
t(328.58) = 1.83, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.16 to 4.30)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(244.80) = 0.41, p = 0.683, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.21)
2st
t(324.11) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.45)
mhc_social
1st
t(252.31) = 0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.94)
2st
t(329.55) = 0.49, p = 0.622, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.42 to 2.37)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(247.56) = 0.44, p = 0.662, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.25)
2st
t(326.65) = 0.37, p = 0.712, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.56)
resilisnce
1st
t(263.03) = 1.77, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.25)
2st
t(331.91) = 2.57, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.45 to 3.36)
social_provision
1st
t(259.13) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.37)
2st
t(331.51) = 2.50, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.10)
els_value_living
1st
t(258.37) = 0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.16)
2st
t(331.38) = 1.61, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.87)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(251.41) = 1.42, p = 0.157, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.50)
2st
t(329.11) = 2.16, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.10 to 2.17)
els
1st
t(249.10) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.52)
2st
t(327.77) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.06 to 3.79)
social_connect
1st
t(247.69) = -0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.49)
2st
t(326.75) = -3.12, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 1.01, 95% CI (-7.45 to -1.69)
shs_agency
1st
t(245.89) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.29)
2st
t(325.20) = 1.74, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.92)
shs_pathway
1st
t(252.73) = 1.45, p = 0.149, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.87)
2st
t(329.73) = 1.69, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.39)
shs
1st
t(246.41) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.54 to 4.06)
2st
t(325.68) = 1.81, p = 0.071, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.21 to 5.15)
esteem
1st
t(296.61) = -0.10, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.40)
2st
t(330.25) = 0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.62)
mlq_search
1st
t(274.42) = 1.40, p = 0.163, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.58)
2st
t(331.67) = 0.06, p = 0.952, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.13 to 1.20)
mlq_presence
1st
t(264.95) = 0.53, p = 0.594, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.43)
2st
t(331.99) = 0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.76)
mlq
1st
t(269.32) = 1.02, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.81)
2st
t(331.94) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.73)
empower
1st
t(253.71) = 0.82, p = 0.413, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.69)
2st
t(330.12) = 0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.56)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(278.90) = -0.04, p = 0.966, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.67)
2st
t(331.34) = 0.93, p = 0.353, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.28)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(280.10) = -0.66, p = 0.507, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.54)
2st
t(331.24) = -1.24, p = 0.215, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.70 to 0.39)
sss_affective
1st
t(249.31) = 0.04, p = 0.965, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.99)
2st
t(327.91) = -1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.49)
sss_behavior
1st
t(251.89) = -0.72, p = 0.474, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.62)
2st
t(329.35) = -0.90, p = 0.371, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.63)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(253.95) = 0.25, p = 0.801, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.10)
2st
t(330.21) = -0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.57 to 0.77)
sss
1st
t(244.64) = -0.15, p = 0.881, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.54)
2st
t(323.94) = -0.96, p = 0.340, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-4.73 to 1.64)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(161.74) = 1.68, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.62)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(141.91) = 1.69, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.21)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(132.64) = 4.11, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (1.13 to 3.23)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(139.80) = 2.47, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.01)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(135.78) = 3.16, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.40 to 1.73)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(134.65) = 2.77, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.39)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(144.99) = 3.54, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.44 to 1.57)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(127.51) = -2.92, p = 0.008, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.91 to -0.75)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(133.96) = 1.44, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.58)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(135.61) = 1.23, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.88)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(132.21) = 2.60, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.41 to 3.07)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(129.24) = 1.30, p = 0.395, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.08)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(133.21) = 1.56, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.05)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(130.69) = 1.56, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.23)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(139.04) = 3.27, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.62 to 2.53)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(136.89) = 1.13, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.93)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(136.48) = 2.43, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.45)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(132.73) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.34)
els
1st vs 2st
t(131.51) = 2.69, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.40 to 2.59)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(130.76) = -4.00, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-5.05 to -1.71)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(129.81) = 2.08, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.81)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(133.44) = 2.34, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.71)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(130.09) = 2.38, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.31 to 3.38)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(159.46) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.41)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(145.50) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.86)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(140.11) = 1.65, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.69)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(142.57) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.40)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(133.96) = 1.49, p = 0.278, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.53)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(148.15) = 2.69, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.46)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(148.87) = -2.51, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.70 to -0.20)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(131.62) = -3.15, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.40)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(132.99) = -2.11, p = 0.074, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.45 to -0.05)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(134.09) = -2.61, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.66 to -0.23)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(129.16) = -2.98, p = 0.007, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.48 to -0.90)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(153.67) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.42)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(137.42) = -0.91, p = 0.733, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.33)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(129.77) = 1.15, p = 0.503, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.55)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(135.68) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.48)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(132.36) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.83)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(131.43) = 1.38, p = 0.340, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.92)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(139.96) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.47)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(125.50) = -1.81, p = 0.147, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.81 to 0.13)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(130.86) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.99)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(132.23) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.23 to 0.92)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(129.41) = 1.33, p = 0.375, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.06)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(126.94) = 1.13, p = 0.523, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.95)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(130.24) = 1.44, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.85)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(128.15) = 1.69, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.15)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(135.05) = 1.64, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.63)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(133.28) = -0.82, p = 0.829, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.32)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(132.94) = 0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.88)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(129.84) = 0.71, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.79)
els
1st vs 2st
t(128.83) = 0.98, p = 0.656, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.53)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(128.21) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.77)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(127.42) = 1.25, p = 0.427, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.34)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(130.43) = 1.68, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.35)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(127.65) = 1.57, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.56)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(151.80) = -0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.30)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(140.37) = 1.73, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.42)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(135.93) = 1.63, p = 0.213, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.57)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(137.96) = 1.85, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.09 to 2.83)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(130.86) = 2.47, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.83)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(142.55) = 1.42, p = 0.316, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.99)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(143.14) = -1.60, p = 0.225, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.26 to 0.13)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(128.92) = -1.25, p = 0.427, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.23)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(130.06) = -1.74, p = 0.169, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.23 to 0.08)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(130.97) = -1.25, p = 0.429, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.25)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(126.87) = -1.61, p = 0.219, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.01 to 0.31)
Plot
